Saturday, August 13, 2016

I am a teacher at a public school in [REDACTED]. During our first professional day this year our faculty was introduced to a new administrative mandate from the state bureaucracy. At the conclusion of the presentation we were permitted to comment. I asked the presenter if she thought the educational bureaucracy was insane, evil, or both. My comment elicited a few chuckles from my colleagues. She responded that she thought the new procedures would make her a more accountable teacher. I rejoined that it would make of me a revolutionary. Once again my colleagues chuckled. Teachers are some of the worst sheeple on the planet.

I later approached a colleague who is a close ideological ally. "Well, [REDACTED], which is it?" As is frequently the case with him, he was quick to hit the mark. "If they're insane, it makes logical sense to accommodate them. If they are evil, then we are morally obliged to fight them." Spot on. He is good like that.

I tried to suppress my thoughts for the rest of the week, but the realization wouldn't let go. I had become a reluctant revolutionary. Or rather, to be more accurate, the state had made me a revolutionary. The idea sickens me. I didn't ask for this. I have never aspired to this sort of vocation or anything like it. It's one of the last things I would ever wish upon myself. But here I stand.

The comment you posted this morning from the German president about something being wrong with the people brought to me another sudden realization. Leaders as a class have never studied the antecedents of revolution. If they had, they would keep on their desks a handy checklist and refer to it often. But they truly are clueless. Revolutions are not a form of spontaneous combustion. I am reminded of the final words of Madame Ceausescu as she was put up against the wall: "You can't do this; I treated you like my children." Clueless to the bitter end.

Or, as Aristotle put it, some people cannot be convinced by information. Never forget that. They genuinely believe they are our masters. I expect events will eventually convince them otherwise.

115 Comments:

Or, as Aristotle put it, some people cannot be convinced by information. Never forget that.

At first I thought that Vox's differentiation between rhetoric and dialectic was mere affectation. Between thinking on my own and watching how rhetoric/dialectic plays out, it became obvious what a profound truth Aristotle revealed.

People who respond to rhetoric need to "get" this fact at the gut level.

They genuinely believe they are our masters.

Also our betters. Our social / intellectual / moral betters. Hence the spluttering outrage at Trump supporters for daring to even exist.

I taught at a private school for five years, until I thought to try public school out of curiosity, morbid curiosity in hindsight. It was a living nightmare. I could write a book, so I'll just stop myself now.

Let us hope that the remaining plurality of English stock in the USA is an augury of an English style "Glorious Revolution" where only the aristocrats lose their heads, rather than a French Revolution style conflagration in which many of the rest of us also lose ours.

I had my anti-radicalisation training last week, they really believe that there can be no opposition to liberalism that isn't a misunderstanding or form of illness. So when liberals they talk about Trump its like he has a particularly strong form of voodoo, beguiling the helpless. They have no idea how many people are just quietly waiting for the right banner to be raised.

People blame teacher's unions for the mess, but they really don't do crap. The insanity comes from the Department of Ed. That ministry of propaganda needs to go. The state agencies can be bad too. Basically a huge bureaucracy of idiot "expert educators" with zilch teaching experience have all the time in the world to come up with educational fads, standards and shitty gradebook software to befuddle, enrage and distract actual teachers from teaching.

That's their sole purpose. I'm convinced of it. I'll leave it to others to decide if it's intentional but I can't tell you how many times I went, "Yes!! I'm actually doing stuff for kids!" In the privacy of my classroom after I'd clawed my way out from under the labyrinth of BS. It felt sneaky and bad. That's how ridiculous it is.

I've worked for the school systems all my life. I've done everything from pouring concrete to teaching Shakespeare in the inner city. I'm now back to working as a broom jockey in an elementary. It's a quiet, low-stress night gig. I love it. But working here, even in my capacity, is like what you used to hear about life in Soviet Russia. The faculty know I'm a former teacher, so we talk while I'm servicing their rooms. We rely on code words, rolling eyes, and tacit nods of agreement to find out who is red pilled, and who isn't. But know this- despite the fact that teaching is totally SJW converged, all but a few of the teachers (at least at my school) bitterly hate the narrative. There are some who undermine as best they can, but like I said, we're in the gulag here. But there is resentment, and resistance. Lots of it. Small hope is better than none.

@26 Yep. I taught chess for a number of years in an upper middle class school, run by SJW types. My conservatism, and the fact that I run a tight ship, was very appreciated by the parents, but disliked by the bureaucrats. I couldn't be fired because the local PTA actually paid me, so I got all kinds of discrete head nods from some of the better teachers, but nobody wanted to be upfront about anything.

Though this train moves slowly and inexorably, it eventually makes 'traitors' of those who would resist shackles. I liken the process to the speedier pen wherein with one congressional stroke, yesterday's law abiding citizen awakens today to find themselves a criminal.

@18The parents are afraid of their kids being given bad grades or being humiliated in class. The teachers are afraid of being fired. The SJWs are really rolling unchecked now in every aspect of education.

@Whisker Biscuit. One of the worst experiences I had at a Christian school was when a "progressive" counselor insisted that the kindergartener who had been obsessively and (rather aggressively) masturbating at school was simply "self-soothing" because "childhood sexuality" is completely normal and natural, she just needed to understand the importance of time and place. So when little Sally proceeded to trip the lights fantastic, in the middle of art, with a bunch of other kids standing there asking for help with glue who were instead exposed to the abomination Sally was subjecting her privates to, I was expected to tap her on the shoulder and whisper, "Private."

I said, one, your ideas about normal and natural come from a junk scientist who masturbated babies, studied perverts and regularly stuck the bristle end of a toothbrush up his man bits, for fun.

Two, at the final judgement I will not be telling The Lord Jesus Christ I told a kid to go diddle herself (in private).

Three, this is a job for CPS.

Four, people spend thousands of dollars a year to send their kids to a religious school in order TO KEEP their kids from seeing sexual acts in a classroom.

Well I'm no expert, but as Yogi Berra said, You can observe a lot just by looking. Seems to me the core issues are...

1) fatherless households in the inner city2) really bad parenting skills (or even no parenting skills) in the inner city3) unreasonable expectations for lower IQ kids (they should be learning a trade, not trying to comprehend algebra4) educators and education bureaucrats who refuse to believe the simplest root causes, and go around making up stupid fake solutions. "Our failing schools" my arse. The schools don't fail, they're just full of failed students. Get them out of there and teach them dry-cleaning or auto repair or something they can actually wrap their minds around and provide them a living. Sorry, they aren't going to Princeton, and they shouldn't be told that they can be astronauts or some other nonsense.

On my last day working in a government school I devoted each peroid to a discussion about evolution and creation. I asked my students what they beleived and what their families beleived. Many of them were Christians. When students asked what I beleived I told them that I didn't believe in evolution but that I beleived in the literal six day creation of the world by God as explained in the book of Genesis. I told them that for the rest of their time in school and college if they went, they would be taught about evolution in almost every subject and expected to believe it by their teachers. I told them just because they had to study it, didn't mean they had to believe in it. I told them never to let anyone tell them what to believe, because people's belief about where they came from is sacred and it will have an impact on the person they grow up to be. I hope I made an impression on a few of them. I think I did. I could tell.

I had become a reluctant revolutionary. Or rather, to be more accurate, the state had made me a revolutionary. The idea sickens me. I didn't ask for this. I have never aspired to this sort of vocation or anything like it. It's one of the last things I would ever wish upon myself. But here I stand.

This describes exactly what I thought, and continue to think about Obamacare. I will not comply to the point of going to jail over it.

@34Yes and Yes. But that crap goes back to the 70's. The schools here in So Cal were accused of racial stereotyping (hadn't yet been shortened to racism) because they were sending Mexican kids to shop class instead of sociology. The activists got what they wanted. Lots of sociology. Besides. Shop class is expensive. Sociology is much less (how should I say) resource intensive. (I loves me some eductionese)

What you describe, Vox, is Gnosticism. It is an age old disease. Liberalism is either a concomitant of Gnosticism or a form of Gnosticism. It has been around forever -- and yes, the World is mostly Gnostic.

I'd love to believe otherwise, but even though I think civil war is inevitable in the USA, I don't think it will be triggered by a rigged election.

I don't see there's yet enough of a mass who see clearly the linkage between that event and the poverty and chaos that will follow it.

And let's be frank about that, it's not entirely a bad thing that a great proportion of the people will not go immediately monkey shit when things don't go their way. For one thing, that pretty much describes the invaders, and for another it is that very restraint that describes the civilised and indeed makes civilisation possible.

However, when the poverty and chaos arrives, that mass of people who do see clearly and are mad enough to risk their own lives will grow exponentially, and therefore quickly out of control.

Except that he didn't. He's still sticking with Trump while acknowledging that the D candidate has a significantly better persuasion game going at the moment.

Of course, that was before it was reported the Southern District of New York was actively pursuing an investigation of the Clinton Foundation and a Hill reporter stated that another email swarm would effectively end the D campaign.

Also, the MSM isn't going to report that the RNC Chair showed up in Erie yesterday and stated there was unity in the effort with the Trump campaign. That stuff doesn't sell copy. It's easier to keep on the narrative that the campaign is falling off the rails when it's as plain as day that the reality is reversed.

I agree, but remember there is an entire panoply of things that could happen that modern humans generally consider stupid to even think about. A solar EMP on the scale of the Carrington Event, a Super Volcano, an asteroid, some biological catastrophe, a megathrust earthquake, a nuclear event or any number of things we are simply not physically, logistically, mentally or emotionally prepared for that could push a society that is already on the brink, past the tipping point. The world is past due for many of these sorts of things. Even a relatively minor event in a strategically critical location could cause a significant degree of chaos and panic. Civilization is much more fragile than we would like to think.

No, the plurality is British. This is hidden by hiding the Irish (the overwhelming majority of whom emigrated when Ireland was still fully British) as a separate category from the other British nationalities.

Also worth considering is the fact that some ancestries are more 'fashionable' than others - so you get people with 1/16 Irish/Sioux/Ewok ancestry describing themselves as such even if they're majority English. If you want to amuse yourself (and face a potentially violent reaction) point out the fact of their British ancestry to any 'Oirish-American' you meet due to their ancestors (almost inevitably) emigrating pre-1922.

My grandfather was an alcoholic fisherman (and a sometime bootlegger during Prohibition) who could barely read. But he was a good, upright, strict man who raised seven law-abiding children in a two-room apartment. My father joined the Navy straight out of high school and learned all sorts of skilled trades while serving on an aircraft carrier, which got him a good stable working-class job which enabled him to buy a house in a nice neighborhood, and raise a family the way he wanted. He too was not terribly literate (only favorite writer: Mickey Spillane), but he thought books had magical powers, and he demanded that me and my siblings read sophisticated stuff. I was reading Samuel Taylor Coleridge and HG Wells when I was five, and writing epic poetry in rhyming couplets. I was also reading MAD Magazine. It was sort of a zany household, but that was what my grandfather's decency and hard work produced. I went on to do sort of... well, more difficult things than being a machinist. But I did build my first hovercraft when I was ten (from my own design, not a model), and I remember my father giving me my first electrical circuit board as a birthday present when I was nine, along with a model of a Viking warship. I couldn't quite understand the circuit board; I liked putting together the Viking ship better.

When you look at something like the US Post Office, you see an organization which employs dedicated but not-that-bright people who nonetheless have a decent income and a steady job which enables a stable environment for children to have better opportunities. Sure, there's regression to the mean, but enough stability will tend to produce more stability. Making 85 IQ kids try to prove Euclidean geometry theorems is just a waste of everybody's time. If they know enough math to run a gas station, their kids will have a better chance of knowing a lot more. The problem is that we don't take an organic view, we take a give-me-everything now view, which is simply not realistic, and doesn't produce success.

A few years ago, I happened to read a summary of a paper by a group of Russians. They suggested that within a few years, the USA would break up into several distinct separate countries. At the time, it sounded like someone had been dipping a little deeply into the vodka. Now, one wonders if they were smarter than we credited them.

Notice how there's always a new educational paradigm that gets foisted on the schools about every five years. Leftist educators in academia and leftist bureaucrats in the school system are catering to the mass of dindus, illegals, and other low-IQ segments who never learn and never make any progress. The left can never admit that these students are not just unwilling to learn, they are unable to learn. So in order to maintain the Holy Narrative, educators (who are certainly not teachers), frantically try to devise some type of be-all-end-all new theory in yet another vain attempt to cram something, anything into the heads of their pet minorities.

"As Trevor163 would say, if he were more perceptive,"Nothing will ever happen...."

Right wingers and alt righters are good talkers, but not very good at carrying out their desires or pursuing them. Liberals, however, are the ones who have the courage of their convictions.

We don't have revolutions in the U.S. But we do have uprising and "movements" and it's always the liberals who are willing to take to the streets, willing to fight for what they believe in, willing to push back.

Not the Right.

So, when I hear right wingers talk about the coming uprising I tend to chuckle, then ask for some proof they have it in them. I never get any proof, just push back that "it's coming", then some sort of threat that, "just you wait, you'll be the first hung."

I'm not too scared. The right has constantly proven they don't have the cajones, just fantasies.

" I told them never to let anyone tell them what to believe, because people's belief about where they came from is sacred and it will have an impact on the person they grow up to be. I hope I made an impression on a few of them. I think I did. I could tell."

So you quite firmly tried to ensure that if anyones personal belief made the strongest impression on them it would be your ridiculous Youth Earth Creationism - Got it.

Not that that angers me; I had plenty of teachers who held the same beliefs despite them being far too intelligent to be excused for doing so. Good people mostly.

Ultimately the most retarded aspects of fundamentalist Christianity ("Dinosaur fossils were placed by God as a test of faith!!!, The omniscient+omnipotent+omnibenevolent God isn't inherently incompatable with this world!" etc) are infinitely less harmful than the least retarded aspects of moderate SJWism.

One of the amazing ironies of working in the inner city black neighborhood is that there are no white SJW's working their handiwork. None. It's a rough area, and the difference between the Narrative and what is actually going on scares many away, but there are other reasons for the SJW scarcity. There are a lot of churches in the area, they talk about God at the beginning of every year (kryptonite to the average SJW), and there is fornication every which way to Sunday. There is bad language, wretched habits, and incredible levels of hatred toward gays. The American Blacks and our West Indians battle for who can be more hateful to the gays. It's actually kind of rough, even to someone like me. Exactly zero SJW whites criticize this. Because the Regressive Left sees these people as pets, they can't figure out who or what to criticize. So they avoid it altogether. It's truly amazing for this to happen in today's world. My pet theory is that it's the only place left in the country where you can blast the gay lobby with impunity and simply get away with it. Lots of free speech on this issue, and it has to be the only place left on earth where this is so.

When I get frustrated, which is often, I enjoy the lack of the garden variety nanny state SJW. It's a small silver lining on a massive black cloud.

"Sorry Malcolm but the vast majority of Irish people before 1922 would never have called themselves British"

Sorry Other Guy but that - possibly accurate - observation is irrelevant. The fact is that the entirity of Irish people before 1922 were British because the entirity of Ireland before 1922 was British - as was (and is) the entirity or Scotland, England and Wales. Did the majority of Irishmen choose to become British? No. Did the majority of Scotsmen/Englishmen/Welshmen choose to become British? No.

The only thing that sets Ireland apart (after all, Gaelic was and is spoken in Scotland - indeed Scotland was the only Gaelic founded nation to survive into the early-modern era while 'Ireland' has only ever been a unified state under British rule) is the bizarre failure of the Irish people to take up the Reformation; instead remaining loyal to the same Catholic Church that had sold them to the English centuries previously.

"Ireland has never been fully British whatever that means"

It has - though you can dispute (and nitpick) about when exactly the entirity of Ireland first became fully British it was indisputably fully British by the time the (formality) act of union was passed in 1801 (IIRC) confirming it as part of the UK by merging the Kingdom of Great Britain - formed by genuine nation states Scotland and England - with the (longterm English/British colony) Kingdom of Ireland.

What do you mean by 'fully British'? Wales has a higher proportion of native language speakers than Ireland does and (unlike Ireland) was conquered and fully absorbed into the English state. Scotland has a pretty much an identical number of native Gaelic speakers to Ireland (no, having your token few lines of the caidean oifigeal don't count) despite the hilariously 'on paper' status of Irish as the 1st official language over on the Western side of the Straits of Moyle.

This petty nationalist delusion that Ireland is somehow magically distinct from GB - despite, historically and contemporaneously, being measurably less Anglo than many regions of UK are really quite ridiculous.

There are few things I find (as a proper, by blood and mother tongue, Gael) more amusing than pseudo 'Oirish/Gaelic/Celtic' paddies whining on about their special status as magical non-Brits despite being ancestraly just as British as anyone. 'West Brits' is all most of you are.

" Yeah, Malcolm seems to not understand the Anglo-Saxon part of Anglo-Saxon. Ie, not Celts."

I understand 'Anglo-Saxon' very well. Unfortunately, like most (I'm assuming here) colonials you find the differences between 'British'/'Scottish'/'English'/'Welsh'/'Irish' etc impossible to comprehend.

British does not equal any ethnic group. 'Anglo-Saxon' is quite specific - referring to the English (in their entirity) and (with some controversy) to some parts of the Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish populations.

One can be British and Anglo-Saxon (the majority, as England is the most populous constituent nation), or British and Celtic (Be it Brythonic or Goidelic/Gaelic).

Being 'American' does not automatically make one a Texan or a Californian. Bring 'British' does not automatically make one Anglo-Saxon.

"Sorry Other Guy but that - possibly accurate - observation is irrelevant. The fact is that the entirity of Irish people before 1922 were British because the entirity of Ireland before 1922 was British - as was (and is) the entirity or Scotland, England and Wales. Did the majority of Irishmen choose to become British? No. Did the majority of Scotsmen/Englishmen/Welshmen choose to become British? No. "

Paperwork does not magically change ethnic identity. Jamaica was British too. Ireland and Britain have close cultural ties just like Ukraine and Russia but they are still ethnically and culturally distinct.

TIL stating "LMFAO" = a winning argument. I'm assuming you had that rebuttal whispered in your ear by a divinely burning bush? Presumably had some caveman bravely riding a T-Rex on the oustkirts of Eden.

No worries bud. The world is 6kyo as you'd like to believe. I concede that reality is entirely as you'd like it to be.

"Paperwork does not magically change ethnic identity. Jamaica was British too. Ireland and Britain have close cultural ties just like Ukraine and Russia but they are still ethnically and culturally distinct."

That's a decent point. Jamaica was indeed (still is, to an extent) British - but is not and was not populated by a majority of the core ethnic groups/nationalities which make up the 'British'.

The comparison with Ukraine and Russia is a solid one to be fair. Different paths (untaken) might well see Southern Ireland still part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - with the many Irish heroes of British military history rightuflly celebrated - just as the Ukraine could conceivably have remained a willfull part of a modern Russian state.

@70 The only thing that sets Ireland apart ... is the bizarre failure of the Irish people to take up the Reformation; instead remaining loyal to the same Catholic Church that had sold them to the English centuries previously.

Hey now, that wasn't a failure. England never took up the (incorrectly named) Reformation either. The Anglican Church / Church of England isn't a Protestant religion. The English simply had their hands forced by a king who had completely slipped his gourd.

Malcolm is wrong both in spirit and in letter. The point originally under discussion was the tradition of political revolution, in which the Irish share nothing in common with the British - they are a different people altogether. Missing that obvious point, he further shows off his ignorance by claiming Ireland was a part of Britain, which the British themselves NEVER CLAIMED. Duinne Eile is correct: Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.

@81 What's interesting is how close the French were to doing the exact same thing in the so-called Gallican Crisis. Henry II threatened to break allegiance to the Papacy in the midst of the Counter-Reformation while wrangling over interests at the Council of Trent.

@33That poor kid was probably acting out like that because she was being molested by some pedo within the school.I don't know what it is about Christian schools - here in the USSA - but they seem to draw in pedos like flies on shit.Most of my childhood was spent in Christian schools and although there were some good teachers - there were a number that were downright weird and twisted. Even as small kid, it was palpable. Fortunately, God had mercy on me and I was spared from any harm from them.

@54 Their scientists have also predicted that we are entering a period of worldwide cooling similar to what was experienced during the "Little Ice Age" ( 1300 AD- 1850AD).They're rather astute and not schackled by PC group think

VD, do you consider the Aristotelian perspectives on rhetoric vs. dialectic to be, more or less, timeless? Do you think there is any cultural, time, or other limitations that put a certain group or groups into a state of being more or less receptive to either?

johnc wrote:Hey now, that wasn't a failure. England never took up the (incorrectly named) Reformation either. The Anglican Church / Church of England isn't a Protestant religion. The English simply had their hands forced by a king who had completely slipped his gourd.

The other irony of the situation: the Vatican had already permitted Henry VIII an indult in order to marry Catherine of Aragon when he rose to the throne. It only made sense that the same Vatican would balk at the idea of dissolving said union after they already made the effort to legitimize it in the first place.

And even when the changes were made within the Anglican communion, Henry still felt, at heart, that he was still Catholic. The "Protestant" influence really didn't start until Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury, and then Elizabeth I made the clean sweep after she ascended after Mary. Very weird situation there.

I don't know what it is about Christian schools - here in the USSA - but they seem to draw in pedos like flies on shit.

There's been a concerted decades-long effort by perverts, mostly homosexuals, to infiltrate Christian churches, especially the Catholic and Anglican churches.

I suspect the homosexuals are motivated to a large degree by guilt and shame and the only way they can deal with the guilt is to transform it into hatred. So they have a huge incentive to try to take over churches - they can exorcise their guilt by bullying the churches into accepting them and they can express their hatred by eventually destroying those churches. And of course, as a bonus, they get virtually unrestricted access to children.

The churches made a fatal mistake in choosing to try to compromise on the issue of homosexuality. By doing so they made themselves a magnet for perverts.

If people are well fed, safe, have choices on how to live/love and aren't under military rule then you won't see much of a rebellion. America is all of those, and so is Germany. No serious rebellion, except by idiots, will happen.

You know all this dick waving about the 'Anglo-Saxon' Englishmen and what is or is not' British and therefore what is or is not the posterity of 'American' is all fluffery considering the latest genetic information we have indicates only about 17% or so of White Englishmen are actually genetically Saxon. Almost all of the white Englishmen today and throughout history are and remain Brythonic celts racially in the majority of their makeup, with the Romans, the Norse and the other conquerers having remarkably small if any noticeable genetic footprint left behind. The Normans left a bigger footprint (although surprisingly enough most lowland scotsmen are actually Germanic Saxon racially, and distinct from their Gaelic Highlander neighbours, most of the Scots settled in Northern Ireland are of this Lowlander stock if anyone is interested)

As VD is fond of stating himself, genetics don't lie, the British isles, racially and genetically, is still overwhelmingly celtic (if we're talking about the whites), personally I don't care. I'm a Roman Catholic Irish Gael sitting on my potatoes here in Ireland watching people bicker back and forth about what is and is not a Brit as it pertains to Americans when we should be focusing on the main topic of the thread which is the corruption of the education system.

Pffft. You don't have any idea what "game" is, you think it's throwing a rubber ball through a hoop, but you don't have any notion of how to make the rubber ball, or even the hoop. "Game" will surprise the bloody pudding out of you.

I actually wish I was in charge of this sort of thing, I'd turn it into Cannae, Lake Trasimene, Waterloo, the Knights of the Vale, and Third Carthage combined. I'd ask Col. Kratman for sane competent technical assistance of course, but I'm actually the nastier, more ruthless one.

"If they're insane, it makes logical sense to accommodate them. If they are evil, then we are morally obliged to fight them."

I don't understand this part, shouldn't it be the other way round? Evil people might do their job quietly and effectively as long as their evil ways don't show, while insane people will run the ship into the iceberg with a smile in their face. Fighting against insane people is a matter of life and death.

Trevor163 wrote:I'm not too scared. The right has constantly proven they don't have the cajones, just fantasies.

Your lack of empathy is what will doom you. Like a small child, the left only knows what is happening now; you can't anticipate change. So you will continue to push and push and push, assuming that since you haven't been spanked yet, you can push more with impunity. But even though I don't know exactly when it will happen or exactly what you will do to provoke it, I can say with certainty that you will eventually be spanked, because of your childish dependence on external constraint.

A Picture of Health? Huh, so the State won't send Hillary Clinton to the big house for the care she warrants, and now it appears she may need an extended stay in the infirmary...Well, Being concerned I humbly believe "We The People" should get her the care she deserves. :-J

@Mountain Man. I doubt it. She showed up in that condition. The people at school handling the issue were vague about whether a CPS report had been filed, so I'm guessing not.

The problem was they started with a false paradigm, that being, habitual, defiant, aggressive, climax inducing masturbation is normal, self-soothing behavior in a 5 year old. Of course any non-perverted person who's ever been around kids knows it's not. But in this case, the Christians involved were so cowardly, so afraid of losing face and looking "backwards" or "repressive" or "unscientific" (!) that they threw all common sense and decency out the window and deferred to Kinsey, progressive Hero, junk scientist extraordinaire who paid people to molest their own kids for "research". They left that part and also the weird thing he did with toothbrushes out of the Liam Neeson movie.

(although surprisingly enough most lowland scotsmen are actually Germanic Saxon racially, and distinct from their Gaelic Highlander neighbours, most of the Scots settled in Northern Ireland are of this Lowlander stock if anyone is interested)

A pointer to a source would be valuable. The lowland Scots are the source of the Northern Ireland Scots-Irish who in turn are the source of the "Born Fighting" North American Scots-Irish. These and the Germans have been a source of US troops for generations.

If the "Scots Irish" are really just Saxons with some Celt mixed in, then White americans are arguably Anglo-Germans with a few other whiffits.

"Blood will tell" said the old folks, those horrid rayciss. Who knew they were right, and all the progressives were lying?

If I may make a precision, revolution is, by definition, any movement that turns away from God. This is why Alinsky dedicated "Rules For Radicals" to Lucifer, the first revolutionary - the ultimate turning away from God. Therefore, any movement which seeks to turn back toward God is properly called "Counterrevolution". Clearly, the diabolical psychopath oligarchs now in power have already executed revolution, and continue to process of revolt. We are, in various degrees, counterrevolutionaries and our actions are those of counterrevolt.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.